TODAY'S MINUTE:
After the Continental Army was driven out of New Jersey, an article titled "The American Crisis" was published in the Pennsylvania Journal, DECEMBER 23, 1776. Written by an aide-de-camp to General Nathanael Greene named Thomas Paine, General Washington ordered it read to the troops: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country...Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Thomas Paine continued: "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly....Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated...God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction...who have so earnestly...sought to avoid the calamities of war." Paine concluded: "The whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back...by a few broken forces headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen...'Show your faith by your works,' that God may bless you...I thank God, that I fear not."
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
FROM THE LOONY LEFT
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz could hardly contain himself as he discussed what he called the “Palin Plague” with HuffPo’s Sekoff.
But as IHatethe Media.com points out, Seskoff and Schultz were wrong about Palin’s influence on last week’s elections as evidenced by this report;
CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed forty-three candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided.
Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed twelve candidates. Seven won.
Though it’s been fifteen months since Palin stepped down as Alaska governor, she was very much in this election, stumping for candidates across the country, skewering President Obama at every turn.
“My observation of Sarah Palin,” says CBS News political analyst Nicolle Wallace, “is that she is one of the shrewdest political figures in our country at this moment. She’s also one of the most electric.”
The mainstream media — and I will include Schultz and Sekoff in that group — have tried to convince the public that an endorsement from Palin all but virtually guarantees a victory. But even Schultz knows that a 100% record in endorsements is all but impossible.
Yes, many of Palin’s endorsed candidates lost and some lost badly, but that shouldn’t be a reflection on Palin. She was just endorsing who she thought was the better candidate and would uphold conservative principles and not necessarily the person most likely to win, though she hoped they would.
One example of this was in Maryland where Palin endorsed the gubernatorial GOP challenger Brian Murphy instead of the former governor and establishment candidate Bob Ehrlich. Murphy was trailing badly in the polls when he received the endorsement, and lost badly in the primary. Palin knew the chances that Murphy would win were near zero but she also knew he was more conservative than Ehrlich and that’s what mattered.
Yes, Palin’s record wasn’t perfect and some of the candidates she endorsed were not really prepared to run for office. But she brought enthusiasm and voters to the polls which is what the Democrats lacked and that’s just one reason why they lost.
Just admit it Ed, Palin cleaned the Democrats’ clock and you just can’t handle it. Boo hoo!
But as IHatethe Media.com points out, Seskoff and Schultz were wrong about Palin’s influence on last week’s elections as evidenced by this report;
CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed forty-three candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided.
Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed twelve candidates. Seven won.
Though it’s been fifteen months since Palin stepped down as Alaska governor, she was very much in this election, stumping for candidates across the country, skewering President Obama at every turn.
“My observation of Sarah Palin,” says CBS News political analyst Nicolle Wallace, “is that she is one of the shrewdest political figures in our country at this moment. She’s also one of the most electric.”
The mainstream media — and I will include Schultz and Sekoff in that group — have tried to convince the public that an endorsement from Palin all but virtually guarantees a victory. But even Schultz knows that a 100% record in endorsements is all but impossible.
Yes, many of Palin’s endorsed candidates lost and some lost badly, but that shouldn’t be a reflection on Palin. She was just endorsing who she thought was the better candidate and would uphold conservative principles and not necessarily the person most likely to win, though she hoped they would.
One example of this was in Maryland where Palin endorsed the gubernatorial GOP challenger Brian Murphy instead of the former governor and establishment candidate Bob Ehrlich. Murphy was trailing badly in the polls when he received the endorsement, and lost badly in the primary. Palin knew the chances that Murphy would win were near zero but she also knew he was more conservative than Ehrlich and that’s what mattered.
Yes, Palin’s record wasn’t perfect and some of the candidates she endorsed were not really prepared to run for office. But she brought enthusiasm and voters to the polls which is what the Democrats lacked and that’s just one reason why they lost.
Just admit it Ed, Palin cleaned the Democrats’ clock and you just can’t handle it. Boo hoo!
OH CRAP. OR, DAMN PROGRESSIVES.
Keith is BACK on MSNBC this Tuesday -- after 300,000 of us signed a petition that was delivered directly to MSNBC's President. Keith wrote the he was "overwhelmed" and "stunned" by the public support.
BREAKS MY HEART. NOT!!!!
MSNBC Suspends Olbermann Over Campaign Contributions
Posted By Don Irvine On November 5, 2010 @ 3:10 pm In Blog - Don Irvine | No Comments
MSNBC announced this afternoon that they have suspended “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann indefinitely for violating the networks ethics policy regarding campaign contributions.
From the New York Times [1]
Keith Olbermann, the top anchor on MSNBC, was suspended on Friday after the channel discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
The MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, issued a statement saying, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”
No one at NBC News, MSNBC’s parent, would speculate about what this might mean for Mr. Olbermann’s future, though one NBC executive privately suggested this was not a step toward firing him.
Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation magazine, will host Mr. Olbermann’s program, “Countdown,” on Friday, an MSNBC spokesman said.
Politico had reported Friday morning [2] that Mr. Olbermann’s contributions were in apparent violation of MSNBC policy.
Maybe MSNBC president Griffin should force Olbermann to make an equal contribution to three Republicans and then call it even if Keith promises to behave.
Here’s the take from Red Eye
Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org
URL to article: http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/msnbc-suspends-olbermann-over-campaign-contributions/
URLs in this post:
[1] New York Times: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-suspended-from-msnbc-for-campaign-donations/?hp
[2] Politico had reported Friday morning: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734.html
Posted By Don Irvine On November 5, 2010 @ 3:10 pm In Blog - Don Irvine | No Comments
MSNBC announced this afternoon that they have suspended “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann indefinitely for violating the networks ethics policy regarding campaign contributions.
From the New York Times [1]
Keith Olbermann, the top anchor on MSNBC, was suspended on Friday after the channel discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
The MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, issued a statement saying, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”
No one at NBC News, MSNBC’s parent, would speculate about what this might mean for Mr. Olbermann’s future, though one NBC executive privately suggested this was not a step toward firing him.
Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation magazine, will host Mr. Olbermann’s program, “Countdown,” on Friday, an MSNBC spokesman said.
Politico had reported Friday morning [2] that Mr. Olbermann’s contributions were in apparent violation of MSNBC policy.
Maybe MSNBC president Griffin should force Olbermann to make an equal contribution to three Republicans and then call it even if Keith promises to behave.
Here’s the take from Red Eye
Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org
URL to article: http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/msnbc-suspends-olbermann-over-campaign-contributions/
URLs in this post:
[1] New York Times: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-suspended-from-msnbc-for-campaign-donations/?hp
[2] Politico had reported Friday morning: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734.html
Sunday, November 7, 2010
SO IT CAN NOT HAPPEN HERE? NOT!
________________________________________
MEDIA MATTERS
Olbermann funded co-chair of 'Marxist-socialist' bloc
Congressional group wants to remove socialism's stigma in eyes of Americans
________________________________________
Posted: November 05, 2010
7:15 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – One of three Democrats financially backed by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann is the co-chairman of a Marxist/socialist-founded bloc in Congress.
Olbermann made donations of $2,400 each – the legal limit – to three Democrats: U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky Jack Conway, who eventually lost to Republican Rand Paul; U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.; and U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
The donations were uncovered by Politico, which reported that Olbermann had financially backed the three Democratic candidates, despite a company policy that forbids an anchor from doing so without prior approval of the president of NBC News. The policy specifically states concern that an employee making such contributions may "jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist" and "may create the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Today, MSNBC President Phil Griffin announced Olbermann had been suspended over the violation.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Griffin stated. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Grijalva is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which boasts more than 80 members.
(Story continues below)
WND reported the caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, and remains close to the group.
Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, two weeks ago WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group could cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their "one-world" plans.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who has a long history with the DSA, was recorded promoting a "one-world" government while asking the socialist group to organize against the war in Afghanistan and in support of Obama's policies.
Conyers was a special guest at a two-day convention in Detroit in March 1982 that resulted in the formation of DSA.
Conyers has spoken at numerous DSA events, including at the socialist group's national dinner in 2008, where he was the keynote.
Conyers was one of 13 founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, which long has promoted far-left causes. He is the most prominent lawmaker lobbying to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. He has advocated on behalf of the Marxist Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship and has called for the U.S. to end its sanctions against Fidel Castro's communist regime.
As WND was first to report, the DSA has been linked closely to the Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus.
Until November 2002, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following news reports that drew attention to the congressional website being hosted by the socialist organization, the list of CPC names was moved to the website of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., an avowed socialist, and eventually to its own site.
The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA never has been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.
Another song on the site was "Red Revolution," sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng."
Another song removed after WND's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, we'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
Obama connected to socialist group
Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for years to Obama.
Obama himself spoke at a forum organized by the group at the University of Chicago in early 1996 called "Employment and Survival in Urban America."
Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S. single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.
Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama's political career.
Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago's branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor – the Debs Award.
In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.
As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.
Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March 29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America member Saul Mendelson.
Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama's campaign committee during his successful 2004 Senate race.
Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of "Rabbis for Obama" and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995 that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park activist community.
Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists of America. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council.
WND reported Medina, speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C., conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing coalition for the long term.
LINK TO http://www.wnd.com
MEDIA MATTERS
Olbermann funded co-chair of 'Marxist-socialist' bloc
Congressional group wants to remove socialism's stigma in eyes of Americans
________________________________________
Posted: November 05, 2010
7:15 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK – One of three Democrats financially backed by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann is the co-chairman of a Marxist/socialist-founded bloc in Congress.
Olbermann made donations of $2,400 each – the legal limit – to three Democrats: U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky Jack Conway, who eventually lost to Republican Rand Paul; U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.; and U.S. Rep Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
The donations were uncovered by Politico, which reported that Olbermann had financially backed the three Democratic candidates, despite a company policy that forbids an anchor from doing so without prior approval of the president of NBC News. The policy specifically states concern that an employee making such contributions may "jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist" and "may create the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Today, MSNBC President Phil Griffin announced Olbermann had been suspended over the violation.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Griffin stated. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Grijalva is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which boasts more than 80 members.
(Story continues below)
WND reported the caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, and remains close to the group.
Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, two weeks ago WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group could cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their "one-world" plans.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who has a long history with the DSA, was recorded promoting a "one-world" government while asking the socialist group to organize against the war in Afghanistan and in support of Obama's policies.
Conyers was a special guest at a two-day convention in Detroit in March 1982 that resulted in the formation of DSA.
Conyers has spoken at numerous DSA events, including at the socialist group's national dinner in 2008, where he was the keynote.
Conyers was one of 13 founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, which long has promoted far-left causes. He is the most prominent lawmaker lobbying to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. He has advocated on behalf of the Marxist Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship and has called for the U.S. to end its sanctions against Fidel Castro's communist regime.
As WND was first to report, the DSA has been linked closely to the Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus.
Until November 2002, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following news reports that drew attention to the congressional website being hosted by the socialist organization, the list of CPC names was moved to the website of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., an avowed socialist, and eventually to its own site.
The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA never has been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.
Another song on the site was "Red Revolution," sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng."
Another song removed after WND's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, we'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
Obama connected to socialist group
Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for years to Obama.
Obama himself spoke at a forum organized by the group at the University of Chicago in early 1996 called "Employment and Survival in Urban America."
Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S. single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.
Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama's political career.
Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago's branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor – the Debs Award.
In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.
As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.
Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March 29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America member Saul Mendelson.
Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama's campaign committee during his successful 2004 Senate race.
Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of "Rabbis for Obama" and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995 that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park activist community.
Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists of America. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council.
WND reported Medina, speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C., conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing coalition for the long term.
LINK TO http://www.wnd.com
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Napolitano swears in backer of al-Qaida hero
WE ARE FAR PAST GOING DOWN THE TUBES AS A NATION, WE ARE THERE. THE PEOPLE TO FEAR ARE NOT THE ARMED MILITIAS HIDING OUT IN MONTANA, IDAHO, WYOMING OR WHERE EVER. IT'S THE DAMNED LIBERALS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFRAID OF FOR THE PAST 75 YEARS. HERMAN GOEBBELS, HITLER'S PROPAGANDA MINISTER, STATED THAT IF YOU TELL A BIG ENOUGH LIE OFTEN ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT. JUST LOOK WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHED. THE LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS IN THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN DOING THE SAME THING FOR OVER 75 YEARS AND JUST SIT BACK AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED.
Napolitano swears in backer of al-Qaida hero
Napolitano swears in backer of al-Qaida hero
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Fraud in Vegas? 'I Went to Vote and Harry Reid's Name was Already Checked'
TRICKY DICKY (NIXON) HAD NOTHING ON OLE HARRY.
Fraud in Vegas? 'I Went to Vote and Harry Reid's Name was Already Checked'
Fraud in Vegas? 'I Went to Vote and Harry Reid's Name was Already Checked'
Terrorist Ayers Endorses Stewart/Colbert Rallies
EFFING BASTARDS SHOULD ALL BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET
Terrorist Ayers Endorses Stewart/Colbert Rallies
Terrorist Ayers Endorses Stewart/Colbert Rallies
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again | CNSnews.com
LET'S WORK MOST DILIGENTLY TO REMOVE THIS MAN FROM OFFICE ASAP.
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT OVER
Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again | CNSnews.com
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT OVER
Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again | CNSnews.com
Monday, October 18, 2010
LET'S GO DUTCH
WORTH KEEPING AN EYE ON. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
YID With LID
Dutch Treat: How Holland's New Government May Set Europe's New Direction
Posted: 17 Oct 2010 07:12 PM PDT
By Barry Rubin
The Netherlands is about to be Europe's great experiment: Can a center-right government manage an overblown welfare state, nationally suicidal multiculturalism, and virtually open-door immigration policies in a way that can maintain popular support and solve problems?
After months of negotiations failed to bring about a broad cross-spectrum coalition a new government has finally been formed. The partners are the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), a European liberal (that is, conservative) party, and the Christian Democratic Party, (CDA). While the VVD has been growing, the CDA has been in decline. Together they have 52 seats.
To be sure of a majority, the government will be supported from the outside by the Party for Freedom, (PVV) led by Geert Wilders, giving a grand total of 76 seats, a razor-thin majority. Another small Christian party with two seats might offer support when needed.
What makes this arrangement controversial is the role of Wilders, often described as “anti-Islam” and made into something of a bogey-man in Dutch politics. While Wilders is harderline than the two coalition parties, there is a basis for consensus among them. For example, he is tougher on regulating mosques generally and reducing immigration especially from Muslim-majority countries, but the new ruling parties support closing radical mosques and reducing immigration in general.
Yet Wilders' role has arguably undermined the conservative side since if he hadn’t run, the two other main conservative parties would have gained almost all of his votes and had a big majority.
And so Wilders is something of a distraction here, who will be used by the left to call the new government various names. But the real power resides with establishment figures, the leaders of the VVD, Mark Rutte, and of the CDA, Maxime Verhagen. Conservative and center parties received 55 percent in the elections.
Both of these parties support lower-taxes, the free market, smaller government, less government regulation, limited immigration, and friendship toward the United States and Israel, along with a tougher stance on radical Islamist groups. So while the international media is going to be focused on Wilders, the Dutch majority supports a program that might be called Wilders without the most controversial bits.
Among the key points in the new government’s program:
--Heavier punishments for repeat criminals and the hiring of more police, including a special increase in those dealing with animal-cruelty crimes (a big issue in Holland).
- Immigrants will receive Dutch citizenship for a five-year trial period during which it would be revoked and they would be deported for being convicted of any crime requiring twelve years’ imprisonment.
--A ban on the burqa, with no headscarves permitted for judges, prosecutors, or police.
--"Substantial" reductions in legal immigration.
--First-cousin marriage, common among Islamic immigrants, will be banned.
--Spending cutbacks including for the minister of defense, including a withdrawal of the Dutch forces from Afghanistan.
Will this program be implemented and will it lead to more social peace and economic stability in the Netherlands? All of Europe will be watching.
The leader of the small Christian Union party, which didn't enter the coalition, has just written an op-ed proclaiming:
"We shouldn't be silent about the dark side of Islam. Large parts of Islam still have non-negotiable objections against the most fundamental political and religious liberties. An example is that apostasy in Islam is forbidden. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have peace with Islam but it demands dialogue, debate, and even sometimes confrontation."
Even the leader of the left-wing Green (Groenlinks) party, Femke Halsema, has been emboldened to say that hardline views have broad support among Dutch Muslims and are forcibly imposed on many women and homosexuals, whose rights should be protected. Whether she thought this would help her politically in the new climate, was genuinely moved for the first time to extend her views to Muslim, as well as Christian, communities, or some combination of these factors is not clear.
What is clear is that many Dutch leaders understand that the majority finds the current situation intolerable and that some response must be made to these complaints. But will anything change?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle Eastand editor of the (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), The Israel-Arab Reader the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria(Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
YID With LID
Dutch Treat: How Holland's New Government May Set Europe's New Direction
Posted: 17 Oct 2010 07:12 PM PDT
By Barry Rubin
The Netherlands is about to be Europe's great experiment: Can a center-right government manage an overblown welfare state, nationally suicidal multiculturalism, and virtually open-door immigration policies in a way that can maintain popular support and solve problems?
After months of negotiations failed to bring about a broad cross-spectrum coalition a new government has finally been formed. The partners are the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), a European liberal (that is, conservative) party, and the Christian Democratic Party, (CDA). While the VVD has been growing, the CDA has been in decline. Together they have 52 seats.
To be sure of a majority, the government will be supported from the outside by the Party for Freedom, (PVV) led by Geert Wilders, giving a grand total of 76 seats, a razor-thin majority. Another small Christian party with two seats might offer support when needed.
What makes this arrangement controversial is the role of Wilders, often described as “anti-Islam” and made into something of a bogey-man in Dutch politics. While Wilders is harderline than the two coalition parties, there is a basis for consensus among them. For example, he is tougher on regulating mosques generally and reducing immigration especially from Muslim-majority countries, but the new ruling parties support closing radical mosques and reducing immigration in general.
Yet Wilders' role has arguably undermined the conservative side since if he hadn’t run, the two other main conservative parties would have gained almost all of his votes and had a big majority.
And so Wilders is something of a distraction here, who will be used by the left to call the new government various names. But the real power resides with establishment figures, the leaders of the VVD, Mark Rutte, and of the CDA, Maxime Verhagen. Conservative and center parties received 55 percent in the elections.
Both of these parties support lower-taxes, the free market, smaller government, less government regulation, limited immigration, and friendship toward the United States and Israel, along with a tougher stance on radical Islamist groups. So while the international media is going to be focused on Wilders, the Dutch majority supports a program that might be called Wilders without the most controversial bits.
Among the key points in the new government’s program:
--Heavier punishments for repeat criminals and the hiring of more police, including a special increase in those dealing with animal-cruelty crimes (a big issue in Holland).
- Immigrants will receive Dutch citizenship for a five-year trial period during which it would be revoked and they would be deported for being convicted of any crime requiring twelve years’ imprisonment.
--A ban on the burqa, with no headscarves permitted for judges, prosecutors, or police.
--"Substantial" reductions in legal immigration.
--First-cousin marriage, common among Islamic immigrants, will be banned.
--Spending cutbacks including for the minister of defense, including a withdrawal of the Dutch forces from Afghanistan.
Will this program be implemented and will it lead to more social peace and economic stability in the Netherlands? All of Europe will be watching.
The leader of the small Christian Union party, which didn't enter the coalition, has just written an op-ed proclaiming:
"We shouldn't be silent about the dark side of Islam. Large parts of Islam still have non-negotiable objections against the most fundamental political and religious liberties. An example is that apostasy in Islam is forbidden. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have peace with Islam but it demands dialogue, debate, and even sometimes confrontation."
Even the leader of the left-wing Green (Groenlinks) party, Femke Halsema, has been emboldened to say that hardline views have broad support among Dutch Muslims and are forcibly imposed on many women and homosexuals, whose rights should be protected. Whether she thought this would help her politically in the new climate, was genuinely moved for the first time to extend her views to Muslim, as well as Christian, communities, or some combination of these factors is not clear.
What is clear is that many Dutch leaders understand that the majority finds the current situation intolerable and that some response must be made to these complaints. But will anything change?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle Eastand editor of the (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), The Israel-Arab Reader the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria(Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
Saturday, October 16, 2010
State of the Union no-show | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
GOOD FOR HIM. LET THE DAMN LIBERALS PLUS ROBERTS SHOW UP. THE REST CAN BOYCOTT.
State of the Union no-show | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
State of the Union no-show | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Monday, October 11, 2010
Duane Tewinkel HEROES AND LEADERS COME IN ALL SIZES SHAPES AND COLORS. I REMEMBER WHEN CHARLEY WAS PLAYING. 1964 WAS MY 1ST YEAR IN THE AIR FORCE. NO MONEY AND NO PLACE TO REALLY SPEND IT ANYWAY. SPENT MANY HOURS WATCHING COLLEGE AND PRO FOOTBALL. HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST.
Charley Taylor's NFL Glory Run
By MICHAEL RICHMAN, FOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 05:04 PM ET
Taylor shifted from running back to wide receiver in his third pro season and wasted no time leading the National Football League in catches. AP View Enlarged Image
Charley Taylor was slower than many of the defensive backs he faced in his NFL career.
He simply outhustled them.
"I would say to myself, 'We've got to play four quarters,'" the former wide receiver told IBD. "In the fourth quarter I'm going to be at the same speed as I was in the first. I'm going to wear that guy down to where we've both got the same speed. That's the way I'd approach the game. 'Hey, you might run with me in the first quarter. But the fourth quarter is going to be mine.'"
Taylor executed that strategy to perfection. Upon retirement in 1977 after 14 seasons, he held the National Football League record for catches with 649, a mark since broken.
He was selected to the Pro Bowl eight times. He entered the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1984 and made the 1960s NFL All-Decade team.
Taylor outwitted defenders in other ways, too. He was a superb runner after catching the ball and racked up 9,110 receiving yards.
On The Go
He thought of himself as a running back, the position he played in college and early in his NFL career, and never stopped moving his legs.
Taylor's Keys
• In the Pro Football Hall of Fame and once the NFL's all-time leading receiver.
• "I knew when I was going to have a great day. I'd just look in the defensive back's eyes and I could tell. You see a guy who's undecided about what he wants to do on the play. With those players you're sort of like, 'I got this guy.' "
He also relied on quickness and shiftiness, posting dazzling moves that left defenders in disarray. Opponents often bounced off his powerful 6-3, 215-pound body.
"I was just trying to get every yard possible," he said. "Taking a 5-yard hitch pass and turning it into a 60-yard gain, that was part of my makeup."
Said NFL Films President Steve Sabol: "Charley Taylor was fantastic at taking a short pass over the middle and running ... through a broken field. He was maybe the best ever at gaining yards after the catch. He had some incredible runs. Tackler after tackler missed him. If they'd have kept the statistic of yards after the catch in his era, he would have some all-time records."
Taylor, 69, welcomed challenges from the time he was growing up in Grand Prairie, Texas. His family consisted of many people who excelled in sports, including his dad and uncles, and he motivated himself to be like them.
As a high school football player, he honed his skills by competing against the wealth of talent in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
"There was enough competition there to satisfy any kid," he said.
He realized he'd found his calling and vowed to stick with it.
On the gridiron at Arizona State University, he teamed with amazing athletes such as sprinter Henry Carr, an Olympic gold medal winner in 1964. With such motivation, Taylor became an all-conference halfback and one of the top college running back prospects.
The Washington Redskins picked him No. 3 in the 1964 draft.
Before his rookie season, Taylor played for a college all-star team against the defending NFL champion Chicago Bears and took a big hit even before the game.
The college team's coach, Otto Graham, slammed him for a lazy work ethic in practice. The former NFL quarterback went so far as to say Taylor wouldn't cut it in the pros.
Taylor's answer? A stellar performance in the exhibition. Even though the collegians lost 28-17, he caught a 5-yard touchdown pass, threw a 14-yard scoring pass, rushed for more than 5 yards a carry and recovered two fumbles playing defensive back.
He was named the game's MVP.
Taylor eyed NFL stardom while staying focused. The rookie running back dreamed of becoming the next Jim Brown, then the league's premier rusher and perhaps the best ever. Watching film of Brown, he analyzed his moves and admired his punishing running style. He emulated him in practice and games and asked for advice from Redskins star receiver Bobby Mitchell, a former Brown teammate in Cleveland.
"Every young player coming in during that time wanted to be like Brown because he was a fantastic player," Taylor said. "Why not pattern yourself after him?"
Taylor's determination to be the best paid off. That season he rushed for a team-high 755 yards and caught 53 passes — then an NFL record for running backs — for an additional 814 yards. He was named NFL Rookie of the Year.
After Graham was hired to coach the Redskins before the 1966 season, Taylor showed no animosity toward his old adversary. Instead, he listened closely to the Hall of Fame quarterback at practice and team meetings and took copious notes.
Case in point: Taylor followed instructions when Graham moved him to wide receiver during the 1966 season. The coach made the switch because he saw that Taylor got open, caught passes and amassed yards at a winning rate.
Taylor thrived and became one of the marquee receivers, leading the NFL in catches in 1966 with 72 and in 1967 with 70.
"Charley was the go-to guy," said Steve Gilmartin, the Redskins radio voice at the time. "In other words, if you want to pull out a ballgame, 'Where's Charley, where's number 42?' He was a warrior, a tremendous player ... big, fast, aware of everything on the field."
Big Hit
Taylor was also a powerful blocker who leveled many defenders.
In practice, he picked the brains of teammates such as future Hall of Fame middle linebacker Sam Huff. Taylor wanted to know where defenders would be so he could time his blocks. He perfected the crackback block in which he came across the middle and hit a linebacker or safety, hoping to spring a ball carrier.
"I'll tell you, man, he took down a lot of linebackers," Huff said. "When he took them down, they went down. When Charley Taylor was out there, you looked to see who was there."
Charley Taylor's NFL Glory Run
By MICHAEL RICHMAN, FOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 05:04 PM ET
Taylor shifted from running back to wide receiver in his third pro season and wasted no time leading the National Football League in catches. AP View Enlarged Image
Charley Taylor was slower than many of the defensive backs he faced in his NFL career.
He simply outhustled them.
"I would say to myself, 'We've got to play four quarters,'" the former wide receiver told IBD. "In the fourth quarter I'm going to be at the same speed as I was in the first. I'm going to wear that guy down to where we've both got the same speed. That's the way I'd approach the game. 'Hey, you might run with me in the first quarter. But the fourth quarter is going to be mine.'"
Taylor executed that strategy to perfection. Upon retirement in 1977 after 14 seasons, he held the National Football League record for catches with 649, a mark since broken.
He was selected to the Pro Bowl eight times. He entered the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1984 and made the 1960s NFL All-Decade team.
Taylor outwitted defenders in other ways, too. He was a superb runner after catching the ball and racked up 9,110 receiving yards.
On The Go
He thought of himself as a running back, the position he played in college and early in his NFL career, and never stopped moving his legs.
Taylor's Keys
• In the Pro Football Hall of Fame and once the NFL's all-time leading receiver.
• "I knew when I was going to have a great day. I'd just look in the defensive back's eyes and I could tell. You see a guy who's undecided about what he wants to do on the play. With those players you're sort of like, 'I got this guy.' "
He also relied on quickness and shiftiness, posting dazzling moves that left defenders in disarray. Opponents often bounced off his powerful 6-3, 215-pound body.
"I was just trying to get every yard possible," he said. "Taking a 5-yard hitch pass and turning it into a 60-yard gain, that was part of my makeup."
Said NFL Films President Steve Sabol: "Charley Taylor was fantastic at taking a short pass over the middle and running ... through a broken field. He was maybe the best ever at gaining yards after the catch. He had some incredible runs. Tackler after tackler missed him. If they'd have kept the statistic of yards after the catch in his era, he would have some all-time records."
Taylor, 69, welcomed challenges from the time he was growing up in Grand Prairie, Texas. His family consisted of many people who excelled in sports, including his dad and uncles, and he motivated himself to be like them.
As a high school football player, he honed his skills by competing against the wealth of talent in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
"There was enough competition there to satisfy any kid," he said.
He realized he'd found his calling and vowed to stick with it.
On the gridiron at Arizona State University, he teamed with amazing athletes such as sprinter Henry Carr, an Olympic gold medal winner in 1964. With such motivation, Taylor became an all-conference halfback and one of the top college running back prospects.
The Washington Redskins picked him No. 3 in the 1964 draft.
Before his rookie season, Taylor played for a college all-star team against the defending NFL champion Chicago Bears and took a big hit even before the game.
The college team's coach, Otto Graham, slammed him for a lazy work ethic in practice. The former NFL quarterback went so far as to say Taylor wouldn't cut it in the pros.
Taylor's answer? A stellar performance in the exhibition. Even though the collegians lost 28-17, he caught a 5-yard touchdown pass, threw a 14-yard scoring pass, rushed for more than 5 yards a carry and recovered two fumbles playing defensive back.
He was named the game's MVP.
Taylor eyed NFL stardom while staying focused. The rookie running back dreamed of becoming the next Jim Brown, then the league's premier rusher and perhaps the best ever. Watching film of Brown, he analyzed his moves and admired his punishing running style. He emulated him in practice and games and asked for advice from Redskins star receiver Bobby Mitchell, a former Brown teammate in Cleveland.
"Every young player coming in during that time wanted to be like Brown because he was a fantastic player," Taylor said. "Why not pattern yourself after him?"
Taylor's determination to be the best paid off. That season he rushed for a team-high 755 yards and caught 53 passes — then an NFL record for running backs — for an additional 814 yards. He was named NFL Rookie of the Year.
After Graham was hired to coach the Redskins before the 1966 season, Taylor showed no animosity toward his old adversary. Instead, he listened closely to the Hall of Fame quarterback at practice and team meetings and took copious notes.
Case in point: Taylor followed instructions when Graham moved him to wide receiver during the 1966 season. The coach made the switch because he saw that Taylor got open, caught passes and amassed yards at a winning rate.
Taylor thrived and became one of the marquee receivers, leading the NFL in catches in 1966 with 72 and in 1967 with 70.
"Charley was the go-to guy," said Steve Gilmartin, the Redskins radio voice at the time. "In other words, if you want to pull out a ballgame, 'Where's Charley, where's number 42?' He was a warrior, a tremendous player ... big, fast, aware of everything on the field."
Big Hit
Taylor was also a powerful blocker who leveled many defenders.
In practice, he picked the brains of teammates such as future Hall of Fame middle linebacker Sam Huff. Taylor wanted to know where defenders would be so he could time his blocks. He perfected the crackback block in which he came across the middle and hit a linebacker or safety, hoping to spring a ball carrier.
"I'll tell you, man, he took down a lot of linebackers," Huff said. "When he took them down, they went down. When Charley Taylor was out there, you looked to see who was there."
GOPUSA » News » No raise in Social Security checks in 2011
SCREWED AGAIN, AND STILL NO KISS. JUST BEND OVER AND TAKE ANOTHER REAMING. NO COLA (COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE) FOR MILITARY RETIREES AND THOSE COLLECTING DISABILITY PAY. LIKE ME. SO IF YOU GOT A RAISE IN THE LAST 2 YEARS COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS. UNCLE SAM'S CHEERFUL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DRILL PAD WERE FOND OF SAYING 'YOUR ASS IS GRASS AND I'M THE LAWN MOWER. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT COLD FEBRUARY 1964 AT LACKLAND AFB, SAN ANTONIO TEJAS.
GOPUSA » News » No raise in Social Security checks in 2011
GOPUSA » News » No raise in Social Security checks in 2011
Grenade Was No Match For Austin McCall - IBD - Investors.com
PART OF AN ON GOING FOCUS ON HEROES MILITARY AND CIVILIAN--DUANE
Grenade Was No Match For Austin McCall - IBD - Investors.com
Grenade Was No Match For Austin McCall - IBD - Investors.com
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Van Zandt program offers assistance to homeless veterans - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror
THIS IS WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. VETERANS REACHING OUT TO VETERANS.
Van Zandt program offers assistance to homeless veterans - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror
Van Zandt program offers assistance to homeless veterans - AltoonaMirror.com - Altoona, PA | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - The Altoona Mirror
Thursday, October 7, 2010
WORTH SHARING
This from one of my favorite writers. I hope he doesn't object to my sharing it with you.
Alexander's Essay – October 7, 2010
Poverty Pimps
"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would ... assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." --Adam Smith
The lead poverty pimp
As a measure of community service, I round up my Boy Scout Troop periodically to meet with my friend, and Patriot Chaplain, Lurone Jennings, an inner-city community pastor.
We gather early on Saturday mornings to serve families who are struggling to make ends meet, most of them elderly and living in squalor. After cleaning around their shacks, providing meals and praying over those families, we always reconvene with Pastor Jennings for a time of fellowship.
Recently, I asked Lurone to explain what factors he thinks have contributed most to poverty in our city and nation. Without missing a beat, he said, "Poverty Pimps," referring to those who are elected to public office on the promise of a handout rather than a hand up -- this from a man who has devoted his life to serving those most irreconcilably ensnared by those pimps.
Handouts, of course, are a much easier sell than hand-ups, but the consequences in terms of human dignity and society are devastating.
Promising to give a man a fish rather than encouraging him to take up fishing to provide for himself is one of the clearest philosophical delineations between the worldviews of contemporary liberals and conservatives.
Lurone explained that, while New Deal and Great Society liberals may have had good intentions, the net result of their socialist endeavors has been the institutionalization of poverty, and the victimization and enslavement of what has become the Left's most reliable constituency of any stripe or association: black folks.
These days, a candidate for office can count on receiving 90-plus percent of the black vote in any election, so long as he has that all-important "D" next to his or her name.
Generations of Americans have become accustomed to being given, or at least promised, fish caught by someone else. Today, Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie have banked their entire political fortunes on classist rhetoric, promoting disparity in order to foster dependence.
Once was the time that the Democrat Party was the embodiment of individual responsibility and states' rights. But the party was led astray by "useful idiots" on the Left, and by the end of Franklin Roosevelt's reign, the Party had been turned on end.
Indeed, the most famous of former Democrats, when asked why he left that once-proud party, replied, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That, of course, was Ronald Reagan.
Now, the Democrat Party, with Obama and his Leftists cadres leading the charge, is determined to break the back of free enterprise and thereby ensure an impoverished voting majority. And they're well on the way to doing so.
The objective of Obama's "fundamental transformation of the United States of America" is to replace free enterprise with a "social democracy," which Merriam-Webster aptly defines as "1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means; 2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices."
Unfortunately, whether it's Marxist, Nationalist or Democratic Socialism, the terminus of statism is tyranny, for as Historian Lord John Acton noted, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Eighteenth-century philosopher and political economist Adam Smith once wrote, "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people." In his 1776 masterpiece on man and economy, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," Smith set forth that Liberty and free enterprise go hand in hand, and that should any potentate of state attempt to centralize the economy, that would most certainly be the end of Liberty.
Today, we Americans, in this last "Shining City on a Hill," stand at the precipice separating Liberty from tyranny.
In a few short weeks, we'll learn whether our nation is going to plant its feet firmly, shout "Enough!" and fight for the restoration of Essential Liberty, or be pushed yet another step closer to the abyss of totalitarianism.
With less than a month until the midterm referendum on the most menacing socialist agenda in U.S. history, I'm reminded of a pamphlet published in 1916 by an outspoken advocate for Liberty, William J. H. Boetcker. He entitled his tract "The Ten Cannots," and it fittingly contrasts the competing political and economic agendas of the right and left in this era: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves."
Indeed.
In the meantime, let us stand firm against the Poverty Pimps, and, noli nothis permittere te terere (Don't let the bastards get you down)!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
GOPUSA » Fresh Ink » They came. They protested. They trashed the WWII memorial.
Duane Tewinkel WHAT'S ON MY MIND? FOR ONE I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY USE FOR PHONY BALONEY PRETENTIOUS BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL TRASH WHO FAIL TO TRULY RESPECT THIS COUNTRY. I DESPISE THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIED IN SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. IF THEY CAN READ, THANK A TEACHER. IF THEY CAN READ IN ENGLISH, THANK THESE VETERANS WHO DIED TO KEEP THE WORLD FREE FROM TYRANNY.
GOPUSA » Fresh Ink » They came. They protested. They trashed the WWII memorial.
GOPUSA » Fresh Ink » They came. They protested. They trashed the WWII memorial.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
VETERANS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
This program has been around for a little while but it is one that I just learned about. The subject of Homeless Vets is one that is near and dear to my heart.
There was a time after I retired from the Air Force 26 years ago that my children and I could quite easily have been homeless. It is a long story, too long to go into here and now.
I WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT MY FELLOW VETERANS.
This page is located on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homes and Communities website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/vash/index.cfm.
HUD-VASH Vouchers
Information by State
Print version
Jump to...
Overview
Related Notices and Guidance
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
What's New
Slides from HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of October 27, 2009
Portability Attachment -
This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAM
Overview
The 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (the Act) (Public Law 110-161) enacted December 26, 2007, provided $75 million dollars of funding for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) voucher program as authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the United Stated Housing Act of 1937. The HUD–VASH program combines HUD HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Veterans Affairs at its medical centers and in the community.
The 2008 Appropriation required HUD to “make such funding available…to public housing agencies (PHAs) that partner with eligible VA Medical Centers (VAMC) or other entities as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, based on geographical need for such assistance as identified by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, public housing agency administrative performance, and other factors as specified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Based on this language, the VA identified 132 VAMCs that will participate with the program. In doing so, the VA took into account the population of homeless veterans needing services in the area, the number of homeless veterans served by the homeless programs at each VAMC during FY 2006 and FY 2007, geographic distribution and VA case management resources. There will be at least one site in each of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Generally, the HUD-VASH HCV program will be administered in accordance with regular HCV program requirements (24 CFR Section 982). However, the Act allows HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that HUD administers in connection with this program in order to effectively deliver and administer HUD-VASH voucher assistance. The HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (including the waivers and alternative requirements from HCV program rules) were published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2008.
HUD awarded funding for approximately 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers in May 2008.
Related Notices and Guidance
PIH Notice 2009-11 - Project-Basing HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers
Portability Attachment - This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAMC
PIH 2008-37 — Reporting Requirements for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program
HUD-VASH Questions and Answers: These Qs & As serve as a supplement to the HUD-VASH Operating Requirements published in the Federal Register on May 6 and 19, 2008.
There was a printing error in the Federal Register Notice entitled "Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program," which was published on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. The section on mobility and portability of HUD-VASH vouchers (Section F) is incomplete. The Federal Register issued a correction on Monday, May 19, 2008. Below are links to a complete version of the Operating Requirements, as well as the May 6th and May 19th publications in the Federal Register.
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements – Complete Version
Federal Register Notice – May 6, 2008
Federal Register Notice – May 19, 2008
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 10-27-2009: Below are the materials discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of October 27, 2009
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH: The VA Perspective (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Project Based Vouchers (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH and HUD's Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 02-10-2009: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of February 10, 2009.
HUD Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 09-19-2008: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of September 19, 2008.
Program and Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Update (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 05-08-2008: Below are the documents related to the HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of May 8, 2008. These documents will be used during the Broadcast.
VA Case Management (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD - VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
View archived HUD-VASH Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
PHA Contacts for HUD-VASH
VA Sites and PHAs (MS-Excel)
National Homeless Veteran Call Center
Content current as of 26 February 2010
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 Find the address of a HUD office near you
There was a time after I retired from the Air Force 26 years ago that my children and I could quite easily have been homeless. It is a long story, too long to go into here and now.
I WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT MY FELLOW VETERANS.
This page is located on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homes and Communities website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/vash/index.cfm.
HUD-VASH Vouchers
Information by State
Print version
Jump to...
Overview
Related Notices and Guidance
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
What's New
Slides from HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of October 27, 2009
Portability Attachment -
This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAM
Overview
The 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (the Act) (Public Law 110-161) enacted December 26, 2007, provided $75 million dollars of funding for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) voucher program as authorized under section 8(o)(19) of the United Stated Housing Act of 1937. The HUD–VASH program combines HUD HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Veterans Affairs at its medical centers and in the community.
The 2008 Appropriation required HUD to “make such funding available…to public housing agencies (PHAs) that partner with eligible VA Medical Centers (VAMC) or other entities as designated by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, based on geographical need for such assistance as identified by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, public housing agency administrative performance, and other factors as specified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Based on this language, the VA identified 132 VAMCs that will participate with the program. In doing so, the VA took into account the population of homeless veterans needing services in the area, the number of homeless veterans served by the homeless programs at each VAMC during FY 2006 and FY 2007, geographic distribution and VA case management resources. There will be at least one site in each of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Generally, the HUD-VASH HCV program will be administered in accordance with regular HCV program requirements (24 CFR Section 982). However, the Act allows HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation that HUD administers in connection with this program in order to effectively deliver and administer HUD-VASH voucher assistance. The HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (including the waivers and alternative requirements from HCV program rules) were published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2008.
HUD awarded funding for approximately 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers in May 2008.
Related Notices and Guidance
PIH Notice 2009-11 - Project-Basing HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers
Portability Attachment - This document may be attached to form HUD-52665, Family Portability Information, in cases where the HUD-VASH family is moving to another PHA's jurisdiction, but the family's case management services will be provided by the initial PHA's partnering VAMC
PIH 2008-37 — Reporting Requirements for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program
HUD-VASH Questions and Answers: These Qs & As serve as a supplement to the HUD-VASH Operating Requirements published in the Federal Register on May 6 and 19, 2008.
There was a printing error in the Federal Register Notice entitled "Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program," which was published on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. The section on mobility and portability of HUD-VASH vouchers (Section F) is incomplete. The Federal Register issued a correction on Monday, May 19, 2008. Below are links to a complete version of the Operating Requirements, as well as the May 6th and May 19th publications in the Federal Register.
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements – Complete Version
Federal Register Notice – May 6, 2008
Federal Register Notice – May 19, 2008
Webcasts
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 10-27-2009: Below are the materials discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of October 27, 2009
HUD-VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH: The VA Perspective (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Project Based Vouchers (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH and HUD's Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 02-10-2009: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of February 10, 2009.
HUD Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Presentation (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 09-19-2008: Below are the materials that were discussed during the HUD-VASH satellite broadcast of September 19, 2008.
Program and Reporting Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
VA Update (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast 05-08-2008: Below are the documents related to the HUD-VASH Satellite Broadcast of May 8, 2008. These documents will be used during the Broadcast.
VA Case Management (MS-PowerPoint)
HUD - VASH Operating Requirements (MS-PowerPoint)
View archived HUD-VASH Webcasts
HUD-VASH Contact Information
PHA Contacts for HUD-VASH
VA Sites and PHAs (MS-Excel)
National Homeless Veteran Call Center
Content current as of 26 February 2010
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 Find the address of a HUD office near you
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
JUST COULDN'T RESIST THIS ONE
"The great desideratum in Government is so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to controul one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controuled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society." --James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
No particular reason to single out this quote above any other. I just love that word desideratum. now there is a 6 bit word if ever I saw one. Just had to look it up and here's what I found:
Sponsored links
Desideratum at Amazon
Low Prices on Millions of Books. Free Shipping on Qualified Orders!
www.Amazon.com/books
de·sid·er·a·tum (d-sd-rtm, -rä-)
n. pl. de·sid·er·a·ta (-t)
Something considered necessary or highly desirable: "The point is not that the artist has 'penetrated the character' of his sitter, that commonplace desideratum of portraiture" (Robert Hughes).
[Latin dsdertum, from neuter past participle of dsderre, to desire; see desire.]
No particular reason to single out this quote above any other. I just love that word desideratum. now there is a 6 bit word if ever I saw one. Just had to look it up and here's what I found:
Sponsored links
Desideratum at Amazon
Low Prices on Millions of Books. Free Shipping on Qualified Orders!
www.Amazon.com/books
de·sid·er·a·tum (d-sd-rtm, -rä-)
n. pl. de·sid·er·a·ta (-t)
Something considered necessary or highly desirable: "The point is not that the artist has 'penetrated the character' of his sitter, that commonplace desideratum of portraiture" (Robert Hughes).
[Latin dsdertum, from neuter past participle of dsderre, to desire; see desire.]
Saturday, September 25, 2010
TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET
THE PATHWAY GREASED BY THE SNIVLING SNOT OF WHINNERS LIKE THESE
Are you, like me, ready to puke all over these sniveling snots? Like it or not people this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morality. Nowhere, as far as I can remember, does the Old Testament or New Testament condone polygamy. Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!
Now, I have longed maintained that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is their business and nobody else’s. Judgment is God’s, not mine. I can find their actions offensive to my beliefs but it still isn’t my call to judge their actions. That is God’s call to make. I have committed too many sins on my own to atone for.
What does frost this old G.I.’s arse is the fact that there are way too many namy bamy bleeding heart liberal news outlets to provide a platform for these people.
If I was a pastor and had a pulpit this is the type of lack of morality that exists in our world.
Three wives? At one time? I have 3 ex-wives and they were one at a time. That was all that I could handle.
Peacock Plugs Polygamy
Softball Today interview lets polygamists gripe about acceptance.
By Krista West
Culture and Media Institute
September 23, 2010
Do you have a spouse? Would you like another one? How about three more?
On Sept. 23, the Today Show interviewed Kody Brown and his four wives. Brown and his “plural family” are the stars of TLC’s new show “Sister Wives.” In the nine minute interview Brown and his wives were given free rein to speak about their lifestyle.
Brown explains his lifestyle as “faith based. Part of a faith belief. I followed through with it and this is kind of where it landed.” A clip from “Sister Wives” quotes “20 Years ago I married Meri and then Janelle and 16 years ago, I married Christine. I fell in love and then I fell in love again and then I fell in love again.” Where Brown has “landed” is with 13 kids and most recently four wives living in one house.
The “Today” interview could have easily been mistaken as a promotional press conference. Host Meredith Vieira asked the Browns questions about jealousy and how the wives go about sharing one man. There were no questions about the potential psychological affects of these relationships on their children. The fact that only one of these four marriages is legally recognized was quickly skimmed over. Instead the majority of the segment acted as an infomercial for the cause of polygamy.
Vieira allowed the Browns to portray themselves as victims in a harsh world that doesn’t understand. Kody Brown states that “When you're in a closed society, you feel kind of oppressed.” Janelle Brown, one of his wives, added “It's dangerous. We're hoping that we can create more transparency for those in our faith. There is a lot of fear in our culture about the government. Sometimes people in those instances, where there is things going wrong, they're more afraid of the government than they are the perpetrator or whatever is going on. We hope we can open this up.” His most recent wife, Robyn, concluded “There is a lot of bad media about polygamy and this way of life and we’re hoping to dispel this and say, hey, that's not us, that's not our family.”
”Today” offered no other side of the story. There were no experts brought in. There was no representation of an alternative side. The interview consisted of nine minutes of drumming up sympathy for polygamy. Vieira states “What defines a family has certainly changed throughout the years. These days families include single parents, step parents, single moms, even two moms or two dads.” Apparently “plural families” are just another item to be added to the long list of alternative lifestyles that the liberal media are trying to legitimize.
The Today Show is not the only news outlet to provide a platform for proponents of alternative lifestyles. The Culture and Media Institute has covered the elite media’s kindly disposition toward polyamory.
Are you, like me, ready to puke all over these sniveling snots? Like it or not people this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and morality. Nowhere, as far as I can remember, does the Old Testament or New Testament condone polygamy. Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!
Now, I have longed maintained that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is their business and nobody else’s. Judgment is God’s, not mine. I can find their actions offensive to my beliefs but it still isn’t my call to judge their actions. That is God’s call to make. I have committed too many sins on my own to atone for.
What does frost this old G.I.’s arse is the fact that there are way too many namy bamy bleeding heart liberal news outlets to provide a platform for these people.
If I was a pastor and had a pulpit this is the type of lack of morality that exists in our world.
Three wives? At one time? I have 3 ex-wives and they were one at a time. That was all that I could handle.
Peacock Plugs Polygamy
Softball Today interview lets polygamists gripe about acceptance.
By Krista West
Culture and Media Institute
September 23, 2010
Do you have a spouse? Would you like another one? How about three more?
On Sept. 23, the Today Show interviewed Kody Brown and his four wives. Brown and his “plural family” are the stars of TLC’s new show “Sister Wives.” In the nine minute interview Brown and his wives were given free rein to speak about their lifestyle.
Brown explains his lifestyle as “faith based. Part of a faith belief. I followed through with it and this is kind of where it landed.” A clip from “Sister Wives” quotes “20 Years ago I married Meri and then Janelle and 16 years ago, I married Christine. I fell in love and then I fell in love again and then I fell in love again.” Where Brown has “landed” is with 13 kids and most recently four wives living in one house.
The “Today” interview could have easily been mistaken as a promotional press conference. Host Meredith Vieira asked the Browns questions about jealousy and how the wives go about sharing one man. There were no questions about the potential psychological affects of these relationships on their children. The fact that only one of these four marriages is legally recognized was quickly skimmed over. Instead the majority of the segment acted as an infomercial for the cause of polygamy.
Vieira allowed the Browns to portray themselves as victims in a harsh world that doesn’t understand. Kody Brown states that “When you're in a closed society, you feel kind of oppressed.” Janelle Brown, one of his wives, added “It's dangerous. We're hoping that we can create more transparency for those in our faith. There is a lot of fear in our culture about the government. Sometimes people in those instances, where there is things going wrong, they're more afraid of the government than they are the perpetrator or whatever is going on. We hope we can open this up.” His most recent wife, Robyn, concluded “There is a lot of bad media about polygamy and this way of life and we’re hoping to dispel this and say, hey, that's not us, that's not our family.”
”Today” offered no other side of the story. There were no experts brought in. There was no representation of an alternative side. The interview consisted of nine minutes of drumming up sympathy for polygamy. Vieira states “What defines a family has certainly changed throughout the years. These days families include single parents, step parents, single moms, even two moms or two dads.” Apparently “plural families” are just another item to be added to the long list of alternative lifestyles that the liberal media are trying to legitimize.
The Today Show is not the only news outlet to provide a platform for proponents of alternative lifestyles. The Culture and Media Institute has covered the elite media’s kindly disposition toward polyamory.
IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME THAT THIS WAS CHALLENGED.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEVER HAS HAD THE RIGHT TO STICK IT'S NOSE INTO THINGS LIKE THIS. IN THE DAYS OF THE REVOLT AGAINST ENGLAND SOME PASTORS PREACHED LIBERTY ON SUNDAY AND LED THEIR CONGREGATIONS INTO BATTLE ON MONDAY. IT GOT SO BAD IN THE SOUTH THAT BRITISH TROOPS BOARDED UP CHURCHES (PRESBYTERIANS MOSTLY) AND SET THEM ON FIRE, WITH THE CONGREGATIONS STILL INSIDE. IT HASN'T BEEN MORE THAN 50 YEARS AGO THAT CHURCHES IN THE SOUTH WERE BEING TORCHED OUT OF FEAR AND HATRED. NOT MUCH UNLIKE WHAT THE BRITS DID IN THE 1770'S.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF RESPONSIBLE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE FETTERED BY ANY TYPE OF REGULATION BY THE FEDS.
Chuck Colson
Legislated Laryngitis
Fri, Sep, 24, 2010
It was a voice vote that silenced the voice of the church for generations.
In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was in the middle of a particularly bruising re-election battle. Two nonprofit groups had been especially troublesome to the senator, vocally opposing his candidacy.
So, on a hot summer day in Washington, D.C., Johnson slipped an amendment into the IRS 501(c)(3) code that governs nonprofit organizations in order to restrict their speech -- including the speech of churches. Johnson’s amendment stated that nonprofits could not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing and distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”
The penalty for such “participation?” Revocation of their tax-exempt status.
Without debate, the Senate held a quick voice vote on the amendment. As the chamber filled with a chorus of “Ayes,” the church became infected with an instant case of laryngitis, thanks to the Senator from Texas.
Before the Johnson Amendment, churches had a strong and vibrant voice in our political and cultural discourse. Their speech was not muzzled, and the church played an important role in speaking out and shaping public opinion on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, child labor, and civil rights.
However, since the passage of the amendment, the IRS has steadfastly maintained that any speech by churches about candidates for government office, including sermons from the pulpit, can result in the loss of tax exemption. Even though the IRS has never revoked the tax-exempt status of any church that has violated the amendment, it has had a chilling effect on the free speech of pastors across the nation.
It’s now time to ask the question: Who decides what the church can and cannot say?
Should it be the government? Or should it be the church?
The Alliance Defense Fund looked into the history of the Johnson Amendment and came to the conclusion that the church, and not the government, should determine whether or not it should support a political candidate or speak out on an important moral issue.
ADF concluded that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring the government to excessively and pervasively monitor the speech of churches to ensure they are not in violation of the amendment. It violates the Free Speech clause of the same amendment since it requires the government to discriminate against speech based solely on its content and makes a tax exemption conditional on speech. Finally, it violates the Free Exercise Clause because it substantially burdens a church’s free exercise of religion.
ADF is not arguing that churches should act like political action committees, or that pastors should routinely endorse or oppose candidates. What they are saying is that while many pastors and other church leaders may choose not—for various reasons—to talk about political issues from the pulpit, that should be their decision, not the IRS’s.
I agree with ADF. Decisions about what is preached from the pulpit of a church should not belong to the government but to the individual pastor and church itself. That is why I support Pulpit Freedom Sunday, to be observed on Sept. 26, in which pastors across America will take a courageous stand and boldly challenge the IRS’s restrictions on their freedom of speech when it comes to political candidates and issues. If the IRS threatens their tax-exempt status, ADF attorneys will file lawsuits on these pastors’ behalf with the hope that they will eventually lead to the Johnson Amendment being declared unconstitutional. ADF believes that if these cases ever come to trial, this will be the likely result.
Many Christians have an understandable fear of the overuse of litigation. But that does not prevent Christians from making appropriate use of litigation when warranted. The approach ADF is using is simply the only realistic way to have an unconstitutional IRS rule removed from the books when the IRS won’t do it on its own. Far from being a rash project put together by people eager to engage in litigation, this approach has been painstakingly thought out. It is the wisest and most effective course—indeed, the only one that has promise.
So take the occasion this week on Pulpit Freedom Sunday to celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and resolve never to weaken, never to be intimidated, and never to back down. As those of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration have affirmed, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.”
DUANE V. TEWINKEL
TSGT., USAF RETIRED
AMERICAN SCHOOL CLASS OF 62
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF RESPONSIBLE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE FETTERED BY ANY TYPE OF REGULATION BY THE FEDS.
Chuck Colson
Legislated Laryngitis
Fri, Sep, 24, 2010
It was a voice vote that silenced the voice of the church for generations.
In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was in the middle of a particularly bruising re-election battle. Two nonprofit groups had been especially troublesome to the senator, vocally opposing his candidacy.
So, on a hot summer day in Washington, D.C., Johnson slipped an amendment into the IRS 501(c)(3) code that governs nonprofit organizations in order to restrict their speech -- including the speech of churches. Johnson’s amendment stated that nonprofits could not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing and distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”
The penalty for such “participation?” Revocation of their tax-exempt status.
Without debate, the Senate held a quick voice vote on the amendment. As the chamber filled with a chorus of “Ayes,” the church became infected with an instant case of laryngitis, thanks to the Senator from Texas.
Before the Johnson Amendment, churches had a strong and vibrant voice in our political and cultural discourse. Their speech was not muzzled, and the church played an important role in speaking out and shaping public opinion on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, child labor, and civil rights.
However, since the passage of the amendment, the IRS has steadfastly maintained that any speech by churches about candidates for government office, including sermons from the pulpit, can result in the loss of tax exemption. Even though the IRS has never revoked the tax-exempt status of any church that has violated the amendment, it has had a chilling effect on the free speech of pastors across the nation.
It’s now time to ask the question: Who decides what the church can and cannot say?
Should it be the government? Or should it be the church?
The Alliance Defense Fund looked into the history of the Johnson Amendment and came to the conclusion that the church, and not the government, should determine whether or not it should support a political candidate or speak out on an important moral issue.
ADF concluded that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring the government to excessively and pervasively monitor the speech of churches to ensure they are not in violation of the amendment. It violates the Free Speech clause of the same amendment since it requires the government to discriminate against speech based solely on its content and makes a tax exemption conditional on speech. Finally, it violates the Free Exercise Clause because it substantially burdens a church’s free exercise of religion.
ADF is not arguing that churches should act like political action committees, or that pastors should routinely endorse or oppose candidates. What they are saying is that while many pastors and other church leaders may choose not—for various reasons—to talk about political issues from the pulpit, that should be their decision, not the IRS’s.
I agree with ADF. Decisions about what is preached from the pulpit of a church should not belong to the government but to the individual pastor and church itself. That is why I support Pulpit Freedom Sunday, to be observed on Sept. 26, in which pastors across America will take a courageous stand and boldly challenge the IRS’s restrictions on their freedom of speech when it comes to political candidates and issues. If the IRS threatens their tax-exempt status, ADF attorneys will file lawsuits on these pastors’ behalf with the hope that they will eventually lead to the Johnson Amendment being declared unconstitutional. ADF believes that if these cases ever come to trial, this will be the likely result.
Many Christians have an understandable fear of the overuse of litigation. But that does not prevent Christians from making appropriate use of litigation when warranted. The approach ADF is using is simply the only realistic way to have an unconstitutional IRS rule removed from the books when the IRS won’t do it on its own. Far from being a rash project put together by people eager to engage in litigation, this approach has been painstakingly thought out. It is the wisest and most effective course—indeed, the only one that has promise.
So take the occasion this week on Pulpit Freedom Sunday to celebrate the freedoms we enjoy and resolve never to weaken, never to be intimidated, and never to back down. As those of us who signed the Manhattan Declaration have affirmed, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.”
DUANE V. TEWINKEL
TSGT., USAF RETIRED
AMERICAN SCHOOL CLASS OF 62
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
TIME FOR A NEW REVOLUTION
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
So wrote the Founding Fathers in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. Independence from a distant, unfeeling, self-righteous ruling class. Independence from a political system that was so tyrannical that these men pledged their lives, honor and all that they had to give birth to a radical political idea: government for, by and of the people. Representative government. Not by elitists but by men, and now women, elected by the people. Not a democracy, warned against by the founders, but a federal form of government. Three separate branches to act as checks and balances, one against the other.
Believe it or not not all of those in the Colonies agreed. There were those who wished to remain tied to Mother England. Tories they were called. Elites who did not agree with rule by for and of 'we the people'
Well, those Tories are still alive and well and still doing their damnedest to destroy those ideas and concepts brought forward in those tumultuous days of the 1770's. Ideas and concepts that have refined and revised to give us the America I grew up loving. Ideas and concepts nurtured in battle and defended with blood sweat and tears by thousands of Americans for over 200 years.
Those Tories are now today's Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Communists and anyone, Left or Right wing, who believes that they know more than I do about how I should live my life. What is good, or bad, for me. What I should believe in, or not. These people,, groups and ideologies are an affront to what I believe this country is, and should be, about.
So wrote the Founding Fathers in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. Independence from a distant, unfeeling, self-righteous ruling class. Independence from a political system that was so tyrannical that these men pledged their lives, honor and all that they had to give birth to a radical political idea: government for, by and of the people. Representative government. Not by elitists but by men, and now women, elected by the people. Not a democracy, warned against by the founders, but a federal form of government. Three separate branches to act as checks and balances, one against the other.
Believe it or not not all of those in the Colonies agreed. There were those who wished to remain tied to Mother England. Tories they were called. Elites who did not agree with rule by for and of 'we the people'
Well, those Tories are still alive and well and still doing their damnedest to destroy those ideas and concepts brought forward in those tumultuous days of the 1770's. Ideas and concepts that have refined and revised to give us the America I grew up loving. Ideas and concepts nurtured in battle and defended with blood sweat and tears by thousands of Americans for over 200 years.
Those Tories are now today's Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Communists and anyone, Left or Right wing, who believes that they know more than I do about how I should live my life. What is good, or bad, for me. What I should believe in, or not. These people,, groups and ideologies are an affront to what I believe this country is, and should be, about.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
WHY THE TITLE "IF I HAD A HAMMER"
Back in the mid-sixties Peter, Paul and Mary had many hits. One of my favorites was, "If I Had A Hammer". Being a some what young and naive G.I. I did not know the back ground of the song. I don't think most of us in the barracks even cared. It was, is, a great song and it struck a responsive chord in my heart and soul. It still does.
I don't like what I see happening in this beautiful country that I love so dearly and I am going to use my HAMMER to hammer out against the ills that afflict my beloved country.
"If I Had a Hammer (The Hammer Song)" is a song written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays. It was written in 1949 in support of the progressive movement, and was first recorded by The Weavers, a folk music quartet composed of Seeger, Hays, Ronnie Gilbert and Fred Hellerman, and then by Peter, Paul and Mary.
IF I HAD A HAMMER (The Hammer Song)
words and music by Lee Hays and Pete Seeger
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
©1958, 1962 (renewed), 1986 (renewed)
TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)
I don't like what I see happening in this beautiful country that I love so dearly and I am going to use my HAMMER to hammer out against the ills that afflict my beloved country.
"If I Had a Hammer (The Hammer Song)" is a song written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays. It was written in 1949 in support of the progressive movement, and was first recorded by The Weavers, a folk music quartet composed of Seeger, Hays, Ronnie Gilbert and Fred Hellerman, and then by Peter, Paul and Mary.
IF I HAD A HAMMER (The Hammer Song)
words and music by Lee Hays and Pete Seeger
If I had a hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this land
I'd hammer out danger
I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a bell
I'd ring it in the morning
I'd ring it in the evening
All over this land
I'd ring out danger
I'd ring out a warning
I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
All over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
Well I've got a hammer
And I've got a bell
And I've got a song to sing
All over this land
It's the hammer of justice
It's the bell of freedom
It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land
©1958, 1962 (renewed), 1986 (renewed)
TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)